View Full Version : Turns 123-140


Wotan
Aug 16, 2007, 07:53 AM
New thread, the debate re. this stupid game sort of confused things I guess so we continued will into the next set of turns.
I have played the turn but when doublechecking towns spotted a town that will riot next turn, a fringe town so no big deal really but I want it neat and tidy so will change that before submitting the turn. A couple of pics until then. And we have 5 unnamed towns now so get to work on names. Plan is still to land on Saber the last turn of our "treaty" right? And that is turn 129?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/28942/wotru.JPG
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/28942/wotrv.JPG

Tubby Rower
Aug 16, 2007, 02:04 PM
would it not be prudent to use those galleys to peek into Council's isle and then return back out of sight?

Whomp
Aug 16, 2007, 07:48 PM
I think you meant Council.

If we block the three tile sealanes to the coastal bridges then they can't do anything till galleons so let's pound away.

Tubby Rower
Aug 17, 2007, 02:53 PM
That's what I said correct? The Council's resource isle is within sight of our galleys and then they can get back out of sight to not let their suspicions arise.

Also I think that dumping some on the resource isle and then send the rest toward the mainland is wise in case they take the cowardly route.

Beorn-eL-Feared
Aug 17, 2007, 03:08 PM
About the whole movement thing, I am not 100% sure about it, but I do believe that the last player in a PBEM does see IBT moves just normally, so we might want to ask Gong about that and keep in mind that they can't be exploited like that for intel, should it ever come down to the 2 teams of ours.

Whomp
Aug 17, 2007, 04:54 PM
Killercane asked if we can give them 200g to run hot on invention. I didn't see an issue with that.
Casey says:
hey bernie you busy?
Whomp says:
Hi Case
Whomp says:
I have a few minutes. Holly's bday party tonite
Casey says:
ah tell her happy bday from one of your civgeek friends
Whomp says:
hehe
Whomp says:
will do
Casey says:
its real quick though, pertaining to civ 3 mtdg
Whomp says:
sorry about the boat btw
Casey says:
Free seems to have education, and I suspect they will hold on and try to get astro+ before handing it over to Council to sort of hide their tech pace
Casey says:
so we are getting started on invention in 5 turns, and if we could get 200 gold from you guys that would make it easier
Casey says:
no problems
Whomp says:
ok i'll post that
Whomp says:
I'm sure it will be fine since we need to burn hard
Casey says:
good deal
Whomp says:
I have to run but let me post that

Beorn-eL-Feared
Aug 17, 2007, 05:05 PM
Happy Birthday Holly !!! :bday: [party]

BCLG100
Aug 18, 2007, 06:15 AM
I think i remember this time last year when you came on msn whomp and started going on about how she was dying in bed but happy birthday anyways! :)

This will sound stupid for sure but why are any of us researching if gong is going to get a load of tech?

Beorn-eL-Feared
Aug 18, 2007, 06:25 AM
For insurance, there's no way of telling wether they'll actually get gunpowder, either of them, with Gong having TGL

Wotan
Aug 19, 2007, 04:57 PM
Ok, will send 200 gold this turn. Waiting to play until a couple of important things are discussed. I guess we are in no hurry to move this stupid game any faster than needed.

First off it appears Coucil has sold tech to SABER which is a great "casus belli" in my book, they talk to and even trade with those worthless pieces of something unmentionable game exploiters. So lets up the exploits a bit, we plan to wreak havoc among Council towns before "selling" our assests to GONG. We will land the first units on turn 127 just to stirr things up a bit. Then major landing on turn 128 in time to DoW on turn 129. Our deal expires at dawn of turn 129.

But what about we talk to GONG, they build a fleet and lots of GS, send them to the north for a quick passage to FREE. When they are in position at the north side of their resource island we sell them LF for a couple of turns or more so they can move without risks across to FREE and land there. I don't mind giving them/trading maps too help them plan we are after all going to act a bit like kingmakers (hopefully).

Also, what about renaming the two onetiler towns off SABER coast to something smart and "in the eye" of SABER. Like "Next to Exploiters Paradise" or "Game Spoliers Neighbour"? (EDIT: Not arguing these names are smart or anything just examples) I have read the rules and nothing in them about using city naming as part of psych warfare. And after the abusive level of argument that we suffered after questioning SABERs exploitive activities I cannot see why we should not do things as the rules allow us to do them.

Can't wait for this to be over BTW, my first and last MTDG I guess. It's a pity, I have before this incident held several of the SABER guys in pretty high regard. I now feel irritated when going on CFC and seeing Chamnix name in bold letters several times in the first post on the start page. Sad what a game can do to you... And to how you view others.

Tubby Rower
Aug 19, 2007, 06:25 PM
new names sound marvelous to me. :) I really wish that I had CFC access at work still as I'd at least be able to contribute more. I'm sorry that this experience turned out very badly for you Wotan :(

Whomp
Aug 19, 2007, 07:40 PM
It's apparent the game has been 3 vs. 2. I will let JB know they need to prepare the sea lanes for Free. I've already sent him a map so they know where to block and attack from (3 tiles of sea once they get caravels and the coastal tiles before that). This means Free can't do anything till galleons and frigates.

It's unfortunate Council and Free are rewarding Saber for sucking. It really taints things...

Wotan
Aug 20, 2007, 01:09 AM
Ok, so start being inventive guys. We need two good names. 9+ hours to go before we need to post our turn but if we need to I can always ask for an extension.

Re. the MTDG, I should have known this was very likely to happen. In every community there are people who will be rules lawyers and play not according to what is fun but what is allowed. In RL groups the same thing happen and the "oddballs" are ousted from the group when ruining what gaming should be, fun. But in an online community it is more difficult to blackball those who practice such things so it is better to take oneself out of the games where such behaviour is making the most harm, multiplayer games. In SGOTMs you can chose who to play with, the spoilers can spoil games in their own games and I don't have to suffer from it.

Wotan
Aug 20, 2007, 11:25 AM
I've asked for an extension and plan to play later tonight if a decision has been reach as to what names we should give the two towns. And anything on the GONG front we need to talk about, maps etc. If not tonight then early tomorrow morning.

Tubby Rower
Aug 20, 2007, 04:14 PM
Game Spoilers and Ninny Britches

Beorn-eL-Feared
Aug 20, 2007, 04:22 PM
Amen to that

Wotan
Aug 20, 2007, 04:45 PM
going to bed now, recent post from GONG need discussion prior to playing the turn so will wait until later tomorrow to allow for more input and fro diplos to talk some sense into GONG.

Good names Tubby! :lol:

Whomp
Aug 20, 2007, 04:48 PM
Here's what I sent JB.
JB,
Remember this part of our deal. -Teams Gong and Babes will collaborate in research of new technologies. No third team is to be part of this collaboration unless teams Gong and Babes both agree on that.

The other thing to bear in mind is Council seems to have already helped Saber out with techs. I'm not sure why we would want to help them unless you can confirm with us why they can make a case for it.

W

ThERat
Aug 20, 2007, 06:36 PM
the plan sounds good, nice names also.

Gifting Gong the TGL for a while to attack Free is brilliant...let's tackle them on both fronts and keep Saber for the end.

By the way, I think we can't just gift Gong everything after taking on Council. I guess we need to hang in there until both are eliminated or reduced to 1 tile Islands. If you are too tired of the game, Wotan, there are others that can play a turnset or two...this game shouldn't be a frustration all the way.

gmaharriet
Aug 21, 2007, 01:13 AM
As the team's only (and somewhat elderly) female member, may I suggest Grandma's Beefcake for a city name. :D

Wotan
Aug 21, 2007, 02:04 AM
I guess we need confirmation GONG has scrapped the idea of bringing SABER into the warmth again prior to playing the turn. Or do we play it and hold back on the 200 gold?

Robi D
Aug 21, 2007, 08:38 AM
Maybe i really missing something here, but i don't understand why anyone would want to help Saber. And i'm not talking from an emotional point of view.

All Saber can give is a tech for the start of a new era. They sure as hell can't research with their current unit cost, so whoever supports them with need to constantly supply them. They can't afford to build any new units because of the support costs at present.

To be of any help they need to remove the blockaide but to do so is dangerous and would reqiure a balancing act over time so they don't open up to an invasion before they can handle it. So it will be quite a while before you would see any return on that massive investment

And finally they have very skilled players on their team and a vey very dangerous UU, so how stupid would the people who bring them back into the game at great expense look when they end up getting whacked by Saber.

The way i see it, leaving Saber where they are is best outcome for everyone (except Saber). The only way it could make any sense to me is to help Saber to get a 3 on 2, kill the 2 and then ask Saber to settle for 3rd and tank (which can't be entirely legal).

Wotan
Aug 21, 2007, 08:46 AM
I have played the turn but not posted it yet. Still time to remove the 200 gold. Not sure how to do since we have not recieved anything from GONG backing down from this annoying idea of helping SABER.

Wotan
Aug 21, 2007, 10:26 AM
OK, maybe we should not ask for a second extension so I have posted the save now. ETA Council is 4 turns and first units land the turn prior to this.

Tubby Rower
Aug 21, 2007, 03:59 PM
Why were you delaying??

Wotan
Aug 21, 2007, 04:15 PM
GONGs plan to trade with SABER and reward them for their game spoiling activities. Not sure we should send then 200 gold if they go hand over techs to SABER. So wanted teh team to discuss first.

Tubby Rower
Aug 21, 2007, 04:28 PM
oh. Ok. I'm completely out of the loop currently. I hope the ban on CFC at work lifts soon. I miss you guys. :cry:

Whomp
Aug 22, 2007, 04:25 PM
Gong will not do anything without our approval. JB suggested we take Leo's from them as they're prebuilding. I suggest we swap wonders so they can prepare an onslaught for Free.

How close are we to knights? They'll have invention in a few.

Wotan
Aug 23, 2007, 04:58 AM
2 turns to Chivalry. All research is done by Scientists.

Wotan
Aug 27, 2007, 09:57 AM
We have Chivalry. Stopped research now to hoard gold for upgrades (that is if we have enough MWs surviving to upgrade) Two turns to landing major forces in Council territory, 2 MWs will hopefully land next turn as a reconnaisance TF. Question is if they will be able to? They have a line of units too, but yet not solid so there is still hope.
And the major news, one of the onetilers off SABER flipped. Just our luck! 2 towns were ours 5 or 6 theirs all ahd about the same chance and we have the flip. Well, who cares! We are after all just going to have some fun with our army in Council before doing what is not forbidden, sell our assets to GONG. We should maybe make use of the GA we might have and build units to line "GONGs" shoreline before selling. They could transfer gold until they either reach domination or marines appear.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/28942/wotrw.JPG

BCLG100
Aug 28, 2007, 04:40 AM
I still don't understand, why are we doing all the work of effectivly winning the game then letting gong win?

Beorn-eL-Feared
Aug 28, 2007, 06:35 AM
We just might win anyways :p And until then, we go to war and kick some butts.

ThERat
Aug 28, 2007, 05:26 PM
It's interesting to see the Council also trying to block the land...after all their assurances that they wouldn't do such stuff. Honestly, if we find that they completely block off the access, my interest in the game is at zero...

BCLG100
Aug 31, 2007, 12:41 PM
How did our city manage to flip btw after we'd built culture in it?

Beorn-eL-Feared
Aug 31, 2007, 12:52 PM
They must have been building a lot of cheap libraries.

ThERat
Aug 31, 2007, 07:38 PM
Never mind about that 1 tiler, let them celebrate that victory...I don't really care. i am only waiting for us to invade Council in 2 turns

Wotan
Sep 01, 2007, 06:25 AM
There are still noles in the shoredefenses on Council island so landed 2 MWs according to our plans. Nothing in our deal with them to suggest it is not allowed. Next turn a large group will land as will another group the following turn.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/28942/wotrx.JPG
This was sent by Council some time ago but none have posted it so I do it here. They are under the impression the deal extend until end of turn 129 but the agreement speaks of "dawn of turn 129", no need to tell them until we DoW on turn 129 I guess. And then we explain our Casus Belli being them trading with SABER and allowing the game spoilers into the game tech race again.
Dear BABEs,

We see you've reached our shores in your never-ending quest for an
open beach party.

We assume that your lack of response to our previous request for an
extension of our peace treaty is answer enough…

But on the off chance that our letter got lost in the mail, we thought
we'd try one more time to see if you'd like to agree to more peace.
Currently, our treaty lasts till the end of turn 129, and we're 100%
confident you wouldn't even dream of attacking us before then :) … so
how about we use these remaining turns to agree to something even
longer… before you face competition on the high-seas when Astronomy
starts changing hands?

Yours Truly,
General_W, speaking with the Voice of The Council

Tubby Rower
Sep 01, 2007, 12:55 PM
:lol: screw them.. take the city next turn and unload all of our forces inside the city

BCLG100
Sep 01, 2007, 06:15 PM
So we're basically RoP raping them?

Gotta say still not especially comfortable doing that- i don't like doing it against the AI let alone real players.

Or do those two we have on the shore get automoved once we declare?

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 01, 2007, 06:21 PM
No automove in civ 3, and it's not like we're sneaking it up on them without notice... even if their new friends had not told them, the council guys aren't retards. Plus, aren't we expecting them to actually open fire first?

BCLG100
Sep 01, 2007, 06:25 PM
What if they don't?

We'd still be ROP raping them wouldnt we?

ThERat
Sep 01, 2007, 08:03 PM
yes we are ROP raping them

Whomp
Sep 01, 2007, 09:32 PM
Actually, we're not ROP raping them since we have no ROP. Let them scream.

ThERat
Sep 02, 2007, 01:16 AM
Actually, we're not ROP raping them since we have no ROP. Let them scream.:lol: that's actually quite true

Whomp
Sep 04, 2007, 04:58 PM
And the verbal barbs begin. Bring it!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5911332&postcount=26

ThERat
Sep 04, 2007, 07:13 PM
Ok, one thing should be for sure, they declared war on us and took out those mounties. Now, do we still have a spiot available for landing? This might be a real concern.

Also, do they have to send us a log of the combat?

BCLG100
Sep 04, 2007, 07:14 PM
Do we still get war happy even though them units died?

Whomp
Sep 04, 2007, 07:21 PM
We do have war and war happiness. Now we'll see whether we have an opening. Ironically, this was in the spam box not the regular email.
Veteran Ancient Cavalry (5/5) attacks Veteran Mounted Warrior (4/4), wins at (5/5).
Veteran Ancient Cavalry (5/5) attacks Veteran Mounted Warrior (4/4), wins at (1/5).

Regular Galley (3/3) attacks Regular Galley (3/3), defender wins at (2/3).

BCLG100
Sep 04, 2007, 07:24 PM
well can we not bring our galleys out so they can't see them, then bring them round the island and land them there?

we could also go see if we can land on their luxury island.

Whomp
Sep 04, 2007, 07:47 PM
Killercane suggeted we do guns, and then they'll do astro-> nav so we can trade resources.

ThERat
Sep 04, 2007, 08:03 PM
what does Gong actually say to our Council aggression? I do hope they all support us

Whomp
Sep 04, 2007, 08:22 PM
They're all for it and want to sign a 40 turn peace deal with Free and do the same thing.

Robi D
Sep 05, 2007, 05:12 AM
What Nikas going on about us breaking the agreement 40 turns and what not, do they not have a calandar over there?

Rik Meleet
Sep 06, 2007, 09:25 AM
Edit: not my business .. text removed.
If you see my post in a subscribed post way, you know my opinion and there's no need to comment.

Regards
Rik
Lurker.

Wotan
Sep 06, 2007, 10:33 AM
EDIT: Ooops already edited it, Rik. Ok I'm editing it out too then. Sorry but I have difficulties forgetting people that behave abusively and that was how I felt we werer treated during the SABER affair. Thus the current play ethics from BABE.

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 06, 2007, 01:46 PM
What comes to mind now is: do we have a landing spot for the rest of the stack?

Whomp
Sep 06, 2007, 06:33 PM
I presume Council, Free and Saber are all using the blocking technique. Since there's no chance for diplomacy with any of these teams it seems we're in a all war situation till the game ends with them. It's clear to me this game could only evolve into alliances with no chance for diplomacy or trading and a 3x2 game is a lock imo.

It seems this will turn into a short term and intermediate term naval conflict.
Blocking the landing areas to the approaches of the coastal spots inbetween islands should be a priority and frigates bombarding coasts with the hopes of creating an opening might help. Research at max speed to maintain that naval superiority and possibly considering building Hanging Gardens so we can kick off a GA?

Just throwing it out there...

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 06, 2007, 06:43 PM
No lethal bombardments on frigates, no lethal land bombardment on anything but H'watchas and aircrafts I'm afraid.

Whomp
Sep 06, 2007, 06:52 PM
That's right. :sad:

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 06, 2007, 07:06 PM
The HG boost, when we'll be building universities everywhere, sounds very sensible in this case. We don't want our GA too late - we'll be close to IA by that time anyways - and we need an edge to keep up with 3. We should see what GONG has in mind regarding GA and a tech progress schedule.

Whomp
Sep 06, 2007, 07:09 PM
They'd like us to run lower while they go upper. They've already had their wonder generated GA.

BCLG100
Sep 06, 2007, 07:23 PM
Take it we have to have a winning MW to kick off a GA?

Could we not send one over to GONG island get them to put a warrior out in the open, attack it and then sign peace again everyone's happy?

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 06, 2007, 07:25 PM
I do believe there's a 'no phony GA kick war' rule somewhere.

Whomp
Sep 06, 2007, 07:31 PM
I thought so too but it seems the only thing relating to units is not getting MGLs.

BCLG100
Sep 06, 2007, 07:43 PM
And as we abide by the rules it should be completly legal.

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 06, 2007, 07:49 PM
In other circumstances I wouldn't stand for it, but as push comes to shove... :evil:

Robi D
Sep 07, 2007, 09:37 PM
I think we should keep sailing our boats around. If it forces the other teams into blockades then that hurts thier research

Wotan
Sep 08, 2007, 01:43 AM
WE HAVE A BEACHHEAD ON COUNCIL MAINLAND

I have opened the save and am happy to announce Council made a HUGE mistake in their shore defenses. Next to The Nursery a lonely Worker is sitting on the coasttile. We have 20 units, Pike, 3MIs and 17 MWs next to The Nursery. We also have 8 units landed next to one of their towns on their Resource island. I intend to actually play the turn in a few hours just need clarification on an important issue:

Do we start reseaching again? What will that do to any need to upgarde MWs? And do we insert a few Libraries in our porductive locations to help leverage costs? What do we research? Upper or lower? We received Invention this turns BTW.

Robi D
Sep 08, 2007, 03:57 AM
We probably needed more pikes for that to survive. Depends what else the council has nearby. 8 should be good enough for the resource island

Wotan
Sep 08, 2007, 04:12 AM
They might be able to take out half the stack but that still leave 10 units, another 8 will land next turn.And their defences should be pretty thin. We are still strong vs. them. So they probably have units only in the immediate area not fully covering their shoreline. The comment on us landing on the one spot where they did not have a unit was a pretty big exageration me think. We saw three open tiles last turn.

ThERat
Sep 08, 2007, 04:47 AM
could you post a picture of the situation right now? that would be really interesting to see.

Are we going to raze hell there or trying to keep the cities?

Wotan
Sep 08, 2007, 04:54 AM
I think we need to raze cities, flip risk is huge with the big culture difference between us.

I will post pics after having played the turn, you can DL and look at it if you want to right now. I just want the "go ahead" about tech research before playing.

Robi D
Sep 08, 2007, 05:01 AM
Absoultely raze, raze and raze some more. We would only keep cities once we had the upper hand. The problem is getting the reenforcements there quickly enough to keep the offensive moving

Wotan
Sep 08, 2007, 05:08 AM
"Quickest" reinforcement route is via their resurce island, 8 ships required. Via the "main landing" it require 10 ships in ship chain. Will set up the one that is fastest getting in place. Would guess it is the "long" route since we have more ships near it already.

BCLG100
Sep 08, 2007, 05:17 AM
Well we could work out how many troops they'll have that could do something really- however many turns since the statue of zeus/however many turns it takes to get one of them horse things.

Robi D
Sep 08, 2007, 05:39 AM
5 turns as far as i remember

Wotan
Sep 08, 2007, 07:47 AM
So what about research? Lower? We start Gunpowder, or?

Do we start building a few selected Libs in productive cities, this is not an urgent question but would be good to start the discussion.

ThERat
Sep 08, 2007, 07:51 AM
what is the arrangement with Gong about research? since they gave is invention, are thy going for gunpowder or switch off research?

Whomp
Sep 08, 2007, 08:29 AM
I believe Gong is sending us their Leo's city for upgrades but I'm not sure they can without losing their other builds in the city. I'd like to get our GA kicked off and start using the extra cash for research and upgrades. We should start on guns.

Wotan
Sep 08, 2007, 09:02 AM
OK we start on guns. Will play in a couple of hours.

On cities; we will not build anything that give culture (vanish if the location change hands) in LF since we plan to lend lease it for GONG to be able to cross to FREE safely. Whomp you might want to get an acknowledgement from GONG they are on track with this plan.

Whomp
Sep 08, 2007, 09:49 AM
If someone else could handle this I'd appreciate it. I'll be out of town till Monday (At the Bears/Chargers game tomorrow :D )

Wotan
Sep 08, 2007, 12:29 PM
We have 28 units in Council territory now. I have sent a few Galleys to threaten the coastline NW of our initial beachhead and it looks as if they are easy lanings to be found there. Should have put 2 MWs on a Galley and landed where our northernmost Galley is. 2 Workers could have been snatched up but OTOH that would have meant 2 less in the beachhead and not knowing there was an opening it was safer to land them all at one place.

Started Gunpowder, ready in 6 turns.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/28942/wotry.JPG

Any minute now Council will download the turn and I guess a big discussion will start as to "how" we could land on the tile they had a worker in. :lol:

Robi D
Sep 08, 2007, 07:15 PM
Thats because the silly people don't realise workers don't guard the coast.

ThERat
Sep 09, 2007, 12:42 AM
I think they really thought they can block with workers, fools

Kickbooti
Sep 09, 2007, 01:53 PM
"Once more into the breach, my friends!"

Well, it will be interesting to see what happens; and by interesting I mean fun :D

Whomp
Sep 10, 2007, 08:45 PM
Here's Council's battlog. The hit us hard but we got our GA rolling.
vAC (5/5) vs vPike (4/4), wins at 2/5
vAC (5/5) vs vMace (4/4), retreats, defender at 2/4
vMace (4/4) vs vMace (4/4), wins at 2/4
vAC (5/5) vs vMace (4/4), wins at 4/5
vAC (5/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/5
vHorse (4/4) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins and promotes to 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins and promotes to 2/4
vAC (5/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 2/5
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 3/3
vAC (1/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/5
vHorse (4/4) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 3/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3

rGalley (3/3) vs rGalley (3/3) at the island up north, loses, defender at 2/3
rGalley (3/3) vs rGalley (3/3) near The Black Seal, wins at 3/3

ThERat
Sep 10, 2007, 10:30 PM
since the turnlog doesn't specify where they hit us, I assume it was all on the mainland. that would mean they defeated 13/20 units. With 8 more units sailing in, we could still attack a little though we have 5 wounded units as well.

Would be interesting to see the save.

Wotan
Sep 10, 2007, 11:10 PM
Unfortunately the battle report really stink. If they have a MI available why on earth start with a AC against the Pike, oh well there might be some reason for this, it could retreat etc. but even so? And the 14th attack is the most bizzare, a 1/5 AC goes in and win unscathed against a 4/4 MW to be followed by a 4 Horse and 3 additional 3 Horses. I for one would never attack with a severely wounded unit before using a fresh unit. Unless, I guess, I know it would win. And that would require reloading. This stinks of unworthy actions.

There is a very disappointing smell about this battle report. You guys who played in the first MTDG, is this the way you play the game? The order of attacks are highly suspicious, just want your opinion on this before playing the turn. If we are to play the turn that is, this definitely smells of foul play.

EDIT: Another example of the suspicious nature of things: Attack 11 is another AC after a few Horses, it win with 2/5 remaining, suggesting a 4 Horseman would retreat at 1 HP but the 5/5 AC remain and fight.

Isn't this the final nail in the coffin of the concept of MTDGs?

EDIT2: Would be interesting to know the outcome had they attacked in a more natural order. MI followed by ACs followed by Vet Horsemen and finally Regular Horsemen. Maybe one of the mods could do it? The 1/5 AC suddenly used is a real enigma, what a tremendous piece of luck! Maybe it should not be included... ;)

EDIT3: Without being too much of a conspiracy seeker ( ;) ) I wouldn't be surprised if the losing units they had were the ones not able to reach the city after battle while the survivors made it into it. :lol:

EDIT4: In light of everything else I am also curious about their reasoning regarding the order of Galley attacks. the most important attack, on our galley next to the mainland is the second attack first they attack the stack near the small island losing then go after the threat. The first attack is simply a sacrifice in my view, it contributs nothing but the second attack is valuable to win. They fight around the beachhead, then zip up to the small island and then back again for an attack near the previous site. Odd, would love to hear their reasoning. maybe I am seeing things where there are none but the battle reports from the main action do trigger a very inquisitive eye.

Whomp
Sep 11, 2007, 04:13 PM
Message sent to the admins. Those attacks are very unusual.

Wotan
Sep 11, 2007, 08:14 PM
This is GONGs reaction to it:
I, jb, agree that attacking w/ a 1hp unit looks stupid, and in this context shadey. Send your thoughts to the powers that be and ask that they review the save for monkey business. Also send them the combat calcs if you have 'em

I would do this before you play the next turn.

My $0.02.

I would probably sum it up in the two following proverbs:
If it smells like a rat it probably is a rat.
If it is too good to be true it probably is too good to be true.

Living by those simple rules has saved me a lot of grief over the years as I am sure is the case for most who eg. do not jump on the chance to be part when you recieve a Nigeria letter promising you the world or being the 1 millionth visitor at a web site. :D The thing is this whole mess, beginning with the reactions to our concerns about exploiting the game mechanics and up to this situation, is taking away most of my enthusiasm for a game normally I just love to play. I have yet to start the last couple of batches of GOTMs, Civ3 or CIV.

This last business is probably the worst in making my spirits drop, I definitely would not have given it a second thought Niklas would be a person capable of doing something like what we now see or at least believe we see. That was until I read the battle report. He and I play on the same team in a SGOTM and he was a solid and upstanding guy in my view, he also discuss risks with different scenarios, never talking about doing things on a "hunch". I am especially surprised he suddenly do not play "the odds" in this case. I would definitely play on the best odds possible in every attack. Which would suggest MI attack first followed by ACs (this part might be up for debate with the chance of retreats in the attacks on Pike and MIs the ACs have a better chance of coming out of the battle alive than the MI while the MI has a higher probability of killing the adversary), then Vet HMs and finally reg HMs. Not using the AC would have been an easy decision, according to Offa's battle calculator it had a 28% chance of winning.

When I do not "play the odds" are situations where I have few Elites and want to avoid throwing them at defenders when odds are low. Then I try to soak some HPs off the strongest defenders prior to using my most valuable units. So I guess there are situations when the simple straightforward solution to it is not the "best" solution. ;)

Whomp
Sep 11, 2007, 08:32 PM
I can't believe any player of that calbier would take a risk like that. It simply makes no sense. Here's my pm and exchange with Ginger Ale. I'm not sure if there's a way to check for reloads but this seems as good as case as any.

They should at least have some type of explaination why they'd attack with 28% odds.

I'll be honest, I learned to play c3c with honor with the SGers at CFC and pbem'ers at CDZ. In fact, as TheRat will tell you, we recently were given a hard time for not using exploits in SGOTM. This is the first time I've felt cheated and I think the admins need to step up. This is not whining it's trying to understand why all the sudden the risk taking.

I gotta say Council's battle report sounds awfully fishy.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5934958&postcount=88

There may be nothing we can do but it sure looks like a reload to us.
Perhaps it looks suspicious, but we all know the effects of the RNG. I think we can let this situation go, but if something like this comes up again and again, we can take a harder look. I don't think anyone is taking this game too seriously though...The game has been pretty bad.

It's just a mystery to me how anyone would reasonably attack with 1 hp A/D 3-2 (28% odds). I'd be afraid to do that with a tank. Just me I guess...

Wotan
Sep 11, 2007, 08:39 PM
Would still be interesting to know the outcome of a more normal use of attackers. AFAIK Niklas has the game on more than one machine, not sure either if the "problem" would show up.

Had they not "gloated" about it in their roundtable thread I could have let it pass but not now.

EDIT: I definitely feel cheated. And the gloating add salt to the wounds, I would have thought they would keep a low profile trying to avoid the topic of the redlined hero. I have posted a "congrats" in the roundtable thread. And asked for entries in a quiz as to what order players would allocate the attackers if they had to play the situation.

EDIT2: A few incidents come to mind, the first GH I popped gave us barbs, that would have been convenient to replay. ;) As would some of the barb attacks when the situation was a bit worrying from low odds losses. Not to mention last turn when the two Council Workers showed up at the extreme NW. Sure would have wanted to land a unit on them and kill them... Maybe we too need to make sure we have the RNG gods in our corner? But that would just be stupid and then why should we even bother to continue this game if every team replay until the best possible result is had? OTOH that would give everyone the same opportunity to get good results. Not just the teams that give themselves that opportunity.


Oh well, I sure sound like a stupid whiner now don't I? ;) Not what I had thought I would deteriorate into when signing up for this game. But I absolutely agree with Whomp, I definitely feel cheated in this incident and it is not a pleasant feeling especially since the (possible)culprit is someone I had not thought would be capable of the indiscretion at hand. I think that is the absolutely worst part of it.

Wotan
Sep 11, 2007, 11:45 PM
Denyd posted the exact same battle plan in the roundtable thread, as we talk about would be the natural to follow.

MI followed by ACs followed by Vet Horsemen and finally Regular Horsemen. And not use the 1/5 AC...

ThERat
Sep 12, 2007, 02:47 AM
okl, let me give my comments about the attacks

vAC (5/5) vs vPike (4/4), wins at 2/5ok, maybe they thought about retreat odds and wounding the pike first, so this is fine
vAC (5/5) vs vMace (4/4), retreats, defender at 2/4
vMace (4/4) vs vMace (4/4), wins at 2/4
why suddenly switch to a mace now??? weird


vAC (5/5) vs vMace (4/4), wins at 4/5
vAC (5/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/5

ok, here they stop using vAC which would be fine if none is left, but as you can see they now use 5 horses and 4 are regular. Why not use the vAC first? Well, as you can see the first attack here is a loss. Better to lose a horse than a AC


vHorse (4/4) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins and promotes to 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins and promotes to 2/4

vAC (5/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 2/5

as stated above, very weird to slot in the vAC at this moment

rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 3/3
vAC (1/5) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/5
this is the ultimate...there is no way anyone would throw in a 1/5 vAC against a healthy MW. No way any sane person would do that. Of course, if you know it wins against all odds (what are the odds?)

vHorse (4/4) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 2/4
why the sudden shift to a vhorse? I mean they got 2 vets and the rest regular and use vets at 2 specific moments...

rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 2/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), loses, defender at 3/4
rHorse (3/3) vs vMW (4/4), wins at 1/3I guess it was ok at this moment to lose 2 reg horses with no defense value as 1 more unit could be defeated in the end.

Overall, this particular sequence makes absolutely no sense at all. I guess you could theoretically ask someone to download the save from gmail and the replay donkey times. Once you figured the right sequence, you can then ask the turnplayer to download and play. This way nobody could ever detect reloads...

If this is what I think it is, actually it's too ridiculous to be true...but too obvious

ThERat
Sep 12, 2007, 04:44 AM
I was thinking about it. The only way we can be sure they didn't really tinker with things, is to ask Ginger Ale to play the save from them in a normal order...

say attack with all ACavs, then the mace, then vet horses followed by reg horses. Then check whether there is a significant difference.

Wotan
Sep 12, 2007, 05:50 AM
I would also like to see the outcome of the plan both I and Denyd would use With MI going first.

It is just that Niklas is too good a player to risk a redlined unit. That more than anything else in their battle sequence bothers me. It would be back fighting at full strength next turn if it was in a location with a Barracks else it sure could move to one this turn and be back in two turns. It just is not something a good player would do if it was not a question of taking a chance to win more than just a battle, say attack the final unit in a location. At least I cannot see a reason why but then again maybe I am really bad at Civ3 I was after all told so during the SABER incident.

Wotan
Sep 12, 2007, 06:05 AM
I have now read the exchange between ThERat and Niklas and I am still feeling cheated. I am also firmly convinced we made a bad judgement accepting to continue after the SABER incident, the game has taken to "kindergarten" proportions. I would definitely vote for us to either just bury the game now or initiate plan B as discussed when we agreed to continue, to gift everything to GONG.. There is no way to regain any confidence vs. Niklas and Council now. And continued play vs. opponents you simply don't trust feels very unappealing.

My big concern right now has nothing to do with this game. I play on the same team as Niklas in a SGOTM. I just don't know how to do in that game. As I said in an earlier post:
But I absolutely agree with Whomp, I definitely feel cheated in this incident and it is not a pleasant feeling especially since the (possible)culprit is someone I had not thought would be capable of the indiscretion at hand. I think that is the absolutely worst part of it.


EDIT: I am very glad ThERat joined the discussion on Roundtable. I was worried it would be a Wotan against the world. I feel really uncomfortable with the many frakas we have had in this game. Civ3 should be a fun experience but right now it just bring uncomfort to mind. Sad. :(

ThERat
Sep 12, 2007, 02:20 PM
Oh please peter. "Nobody would", "something creepy", "psychic powers" and "bad taste". What else could he possibly be talking about? No he didn't say it straight out, but the innuendo wasn't even thinly veiled.Seems like I hit the right button :lol:
If they have their reasons for this attack which they claim they have, they could just come out and say so properly instead of clouding it...
I for sure would have used up all horses first before thinking about such a move, counting my defenders in the city etc...he lost 2 horses later on which he couldn't have known by then. So, at he time of attack, the situation wasn't desperate at that moment.
Whatever big picture he claims he has...anyway seems like they will hate me for the rest of th game

Whomp
Sep 12, 2007, 05:54 PM
Sorry I couldn't add on to the conversation but I don't have access during the day. I think we should ask GA to replay the save based on what would be a reasonable attack sequence simply for our own sanity.

ThERat
Sep 12, 2007, 07:47 PM
yes, he should do that just for the fact that would the 'fishiness' would be eliminated, but he has ruled that there is no foul play

Wotan
Sep 13, 2007, 12:16 AM
I hve discussed it extensively with niklas yesterday evening. He basically said the only thing he planned when attacking was the primary attacks but as soon as the MWs were in line it was a simple grab the unit Civ3 activated and attack and that was how it went through the sequence. So the 1/5 just happened to have that slot chosen by Civ3. And there is a case for it to be used. They considered it a real risk it would be subject to be attacked and with that in mind attacking was better than defending. I'm not getting any wiser and maybe it si better just to put it aside.

I just wish they had not used the 1/5 I guess none of this would have happened had they not. It was just so extremely odd in my view. The outcome is not that "off" stats so there is a weird flaming going on about us complaining about not being able to win easily. Which is complete BS since the SABER incident, at least in my mind was about putting the game to sleep and starting a new game with marine capable units in every age. And teh statistics of the last turns attacks has never been questioned. Only the odd sequence. But as said earleir this is sure easy to find out, just by observing how Civ3 chose which unit to activate and follow that sequence.

Just to make sure we avoid any discussion about our turn and any counterattacks I have told Niklas I will attack in a sequence to start with the most difficult target first and work our way through the possible battles with that in mind. Pretty sure they will have more than 7 units in the town so I guess not even a clean attack series without losses would win us the town.

I'll probably play in a few hours, either at lunchtime or later today.

ThERat
Sep 13, 2007, 12:29 AM
hey, Wotan before you play, I had a look at the save and this is what I think we should do

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/53368/battle_plan.jpg

1. take out the resource Island (it seems they abandoned 2 towns already). I am sure we can beat that pike there.

2. instead of attacking The Nursery not knowing how many units they have there, why don't we do what I put up. They have 4 heavily wounded units. We can take them out and take our mounties safely to the boats.

4. We can use 2 mounties to pillage roads at th indicated spots to make sure their units in the Nursery can't reach our landing spot.

5. Land 6 mounties next to The Pier. We will lose 1 of them against that mace, but I seriously doubt that they have any defenders around (you can recce the area with one of the empty boats). because we pillaged the roads, we should be quite safe from northern counters

6. Once we landed, we can get another pike/mountie over in 1 turn I think (with ship chaining).

what do you think?

Wotan
Sep 13, 2007, 02:13 AM
Sorry about this ThERat, I have just finished the turn. And I think it was good I stuck to the plan I had discussed with Niklas prior to seeing the save rather than do something very different at this point when we might need to act a bit cool not to get people worked up over any diversions from what has been said. Sorry if I exeeded my power's as turn player by discussing what we should do with Niklas prior to actually getting approval in the team.

I did the battles in order of difficulty as agreed with Niklas. starting with the Pike in the Lookout. Then wanted to explore with Galleys and check the coastline north and south. Sent a galley to check the spot where we last lost a Galley and saw the two workers still busy clearing the jungle. Cubsfan was one of them and this just was too big a challenge to disregard. Figured if I could sink their Galley we would do what we missed last turn, send a couple of MWs north to upset things. The galley redlined thiers so I put two MWs on the other galley able to reach the tile. When approaching I discover their galley promoted so it is now roughly a 2/3 chance. The MW are already committed I guess and would be at risk of being drowned with the Galley should they attack next turn so do the battle, win and land to capture Cubsfan. That sure felt good. ;)

Then over to the main attraction, the alarums and excursions at the Nursery.
7 attacks we win 6 and land an additional 4 MWs there. Council has 4 units in The Nursery all redlined, the comments from Niklas about the 1/5 suggest they do not have a Barracks there. Maybe they rush it now? Or at least rush a HM or Pike? We should however have the upper hand next turn.

GA is helping on the home front, we are producing roughly 2 Knights per turn now. keeping 2 in support should the FREE Galley decide to drop off some units. But setting up the southern Ship chain to get reinforcements to the battlefield. That is fastest to set up even if it is 2 or 3 ships longer we have all we need in the area already.

Gunpowder in 4 turns.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/28942/wotrz.JPG
Battle for the Lookout
vMW (4/4) vs vPike (4/4), retreats, defender at 2/4
vMW (4/4) vs vPike (2/4), retreats, defender at 2/4
vMW (4/4) vs vPike (2/4), loses, defender at 1/4
vMW (4/4) vs vPike (1/4), wins and promotes to 2/5
The Lookout razed

Seabattle near The Black Seal,
rGalley (3/3) vs rGalley (3/3) loses defender at 2/4 (init. thought it was 1/3)
rGalley (3/3) vs vGalley (2/4) wins at 1/3
2MWs land and capture Cubsfan and Tony. (Sorry, but this was just a gamble that was sweet to have pay off.)

Battle for the Nursery
vMW (4/4) vs vAC (4/5), wins at 3/4
vMW (4/4) vs vAC (2/5), wins at 3/4
vMW (3/4) vs vMI (2/4), wins at 3/4
vMI (2/4) vs rHorse (3/3), wins at 1/4
vMW (2/4) vs vHorse (2/4), wins at 1/4
vMW (2/4) vs vHorse (2/4), loses defender promotes to 3/5
vMW (2/4) vs eHorse (3/5), wins and promotes to 3/5

Robi D
Sep 13, 2007, 04:31 AM
Might be a little late on this conversation but i think some of us are being just slightly paranoid about the battle order the council took.

Personally i am not a regimented play and will try things that are not by the book. To me it seems they regard the AC as disposable since they get built by SoZ and don't upgrade. As for the lucky 1/5 AC, i would have played it sooner hoping to do some damage a health unit could take advantage of later on.

The thing about judging moves according to ones own rationality is that everyones rationality is different:)

Wotan
Sep 13, 2007, 04:34 AM
Well, they only had 18 units attacking so we outnumbered them. So additional attackes would only have been possible had eg. the Pike survived.

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 13, 2007, 05:30 AM
Oh damn I'm late too, I would've pointed out we could use a pillaged tile for safekeeping from MDI's, between nursery and nine yard.

And about the 1/5 attack, I'd just assume they are THAT desperate and that we need to press on killing them. It sounds like it'll work, from their perspective.

Robi D
Sep 13, 2007, 06:54 AM
Well, they only had 18 units attacking so we outnumbered them. So additional attackes would only have been possible had eg. the Pike survived.

In that case the order didn't really matter. They are going to throw the kitchen sink at us to stop us getting a foot hold. The order didn't really matter at that point. Besides dumb luck wont save them everytime.

ThERat
Sep 13, 2007, 09:13 AM
I don't think I need to point that out, but just in case...

you can load the wounded MW's from the resource Island, they will heal onboard the ships

gmaharriet
Sep 13, 2007, 02:05 PM
I don't think I need to point that out, but just in case...

you can load the wounded MW's from the resource Island, they will heal onboard the ships

I did NOT know that. Thank you for the useful tip!!! :)

ThERat
Sep 13, 2007, 03:22 PM
according to the latest post by Niklas, we lost another 6 MW's. He didn't even use any mace yet. They lost 3 units, but I can't see us winning anything without proper defense.

IIRC the battle of klarius versus ???, the key was sending plenty of defenders to absorb all the attacks.
That's why I suggested to defeat stack of 4 and load wounded units onto the boat, while we land further in the south where they might not expect us and due to pillaging road, we could have escaped any attack.

It's too late but I can't see us achieving anything this way. :(

Whomp
Sep 13, 2007, 06:13 PM
We should hold that island with a Saber tactic until we find out where the saltpeter is. There's a possibility it could be resource denial to Council.

ThERat
Sep 13, 2007, 08:47 PM
Ok, after thinking about our latest move for a bit, here are more comments.

I remember in the inital discussion about warfare and MTDG, Whomp or someone else brought up the issue about warfare with a very skillful play by Wacken. He built up massive amounts of defenders for a landing.
This is how he won the war. Any attack was absorbed by them and all the attackers could then move in.

What we did in the last 3 turns, was the exact opposite. The result? War happiness and GA, but plenty of losses. In fact our whole attack force got/will be wiped out. Our defense 1 units do not cut it even againts wounded horses. That's why I suggested to defeat the small exposed stack and move into the boats to cut further losses.
I would have landed in the south for a surprise as I am guessing all their units headed for the current spot. With roads pillaged, we might have had a chance to wreak some havoc before moving onto boats yet again.
In the meantime we could have built up more defenders.

Anyway, what's done is done. I would have wished you wouldn't have played so fast, Wotan. This is a critical point and I do think we have quite a few experienced warmongers in the team.

As for the future, let's just evacuate that tiny stack of 4 units that is left and re-think our strategy. I agree with Whomp to block all resource Islands from attacks with cheap units. We wouldn't know where resources are.

I guess we have to build up a stack of muskets/knights before moving in again. We could also sail around in the south with the evacuated units to make them think we land there and then drop the northern units elsewhere. It must be fast and swift. Attack and raze and evacuate. Rinse and repeat.

Wotan
Sep 14, 2007, 01:36 AM
We were from the beginning of the campaign vs Council out to wreak as much havoc as our MWs would possibly be capable of inflicting. We discusesd doing this and then transfer assets to GONG as an exit from the game. Has our game goals changed from that mission?

I do agree we probably would have been better served doing it according to your plan but the pretty extraordinary situation after what we all felt was a pretty strange pattern of unit allocations in their first attack. I talked to Niklas about procedure to avoid any additional bad blood between our teams so in one sense it was unfortunate I wanted to use speed and a simple best unit first and then down through the stack until all unit were used.

Not sure how an attack on the four units in the open would have ended but we had 10 units next to their town after our turn and 8 of those 3 or better in attack value. A small force yes but they were down to heavily wounded units only so decided to gamble on them not having more than a couple of rushed units to add to the battle, unfortunately they managed to add a few too many.

One interesting thing is they did not feel the need to use the 1HP units this time. The situation is pretty similar to the situation last turn. Using them is not a question of desperate measures, they have more units in the town than we have outside it, the same situation they felt they needed to attack with a 1 unit last turn. Not saying there is anything shady going on. Just an interesting observation. ;)

So I guess we change to hit and run tactics now? We have our northern units, they are capable of hopefully enter into the action at that end of the island.

What about the remaining units, load on ships and send home for upgrade to Knights? Keep a few Ships cruising in groups to force them to remain vigil?

On the next chapter of this battle: Muskets are a waste in my mind, Knights are capable of doing almost as good a job on defense and absolutely a better job on the attack they also move faster. ;)

Do we continue long term with the game or will we end it after the next "Knight" war? We build about 2 per turn and should have at least 35 of them at the end of our GA.

I am also keeping all of our small fringe towns without road connection on our home island to be able to build Warriors for "sticks and stones" shore patrols. When towns are in position we need 53 units on patrol to cordon off until Marines. At the current pace we will have that number of Warriors in less than 20 turns. We have 17 now. I am pretty sure it will be in time to counter any FREE/SABER landings. Sending a group of Galleys to cruise SABER coasts could also be a handy thing even if I would assume they do not disband their coastal defenses prior to Marines.

Wotan
Sep 14, 2007, 02:50 AM
I remember in the inital discussion about warfare and MTDG, Whomp or someone else brought up the issue about warfare with a very skillful play by Wacken. He built up massive amounts of defenders for a landing.
This is how he won the war. Any attack was absorbed by them and all the attackers could then move in.

What we did in the last 3 turns, was the exact opposite. The result? War happiness and GA, but plenty of losses. In fact our whole attack force got/will be wiped out.
.
Yes it was very different. Doing it according to Wackens plan would suggest we had pulled back all our forces. Built massive amounts of defenders for the landing and returned in what, 30 turns time or so, to find the shore line filled with units and yet again turn back with no landing. If we should have plenty of defenders prior to landing why did we go for a landing in the first place?
Anyway, what's done is done. I would have wished you wouldn't have played so fast, Wotan. This is a critical point and I do think we have quite a few experienced warmongers in the team.
.
I tried to defuse an awkward situation. A situation I sure was part of creating by being a bit suspicious about their attack sequence. Changing what I had talked to Niklas about would have risked escalating the conflict with counterclaims of us adjusting when we realise we could not take the town. Besides it was a calculated risk nevertheless. They were down to oneliners and the chance they might not have more than one or two additional reinforcements would be a very different matter than when they apparently had 5 or 6 fresh units. The fact they had this many fresh units do make the reasoning for using the 1/5 last turn a bit out of place. They sure have enough units to make sure we cannot force our way into the town so that is still odd in my view.

I agree we should pull out now but still maintain we acted according to plans laid out in advance. I woudl really have prefered you had been more opposed to the venture a bit earlier than to come waving the "Wacken" card at this stage. The weakness was known and discussed. It woudl have been the same had we gained a foothold on SABER island.
I guess we have to build up a stack of muskets/knights before moving in again. We could also sail around in the south with the evacuated units to make them think we land there and then drop the northern units elsewhere. It must be fast and swift. Attack and raze and evacuate. Rinse and repeat.
Yes and no. It do require we change the current plan, to use MWs until out of them and then gift to GONG. I have no problem with this. But I do disagree we build any Muskets. A Knight is 1 lower in defense but an inferior unit in all other aspects to a Knight. We will also be close to or actually have Cavalry at the end of our GA. Upgrading to Cavalry only feels a lot better than going in with Muskets and Cavalry mixed.

So do we change this game objective? Are we no longer looking at MWs as expendable and let them fight till death since we cannot gift them? Do we not gift and leave the game after GA and are we to reneg on what we have told GONG, that we will eventually gift them our assets? I can see a reasoning for sticking around until GA end we will be able to get them all lower half techs too.

And a second wave of attack at the end of that period involving Knights/Cavalry might help too.

So do we bring our remaining forces home for upgrade but keep ships so Council fear another landing? The northern units should they attampt to disrupt their northern shore or not? They are not bringing massive amounts of defenders.

@ThERat: Not trying to start a verbal war between us. I am sure your plan last turn was better. But the result from the actions I took will not create a risk of escalating the conflict outside of the game, while changing it sure would risk that. It is in my view a political price we have paid for it and it cost us 4 MWs lost to 3 HMs lost for them during their turn, right? Your suggestion would have resulted in none of this happen and we would have lost a couple of MWs last turn and one from not being able to move the roadcutter in the tile with their defenders.

I am just equally sure I would have appreciated the "Wacken" card played prior to us moving off from SABER seas to go find a landing spot on Council island.

ThERat
Sep 14, 2007, 03:07 AM
Is disconnecting a resource like saltpeter allowed? If so, we could build knight/pike combos? I also dislike muskets as they are not really worth the investment.

As for the longer term tactics, I think we need to sound out the team. Short term I think we can still use the MW's with hit and run.

ThERat
Sep 14, 2007, 03:10 AM
@ThERat: Not trying to start a verbal war between us.I am fine, I understand your explanation. Let's take a moment after we see the next save to discuss how to proceed

Wotan
Sep 14, 2007, 03:22 AM
I am fine, I understand your explanation. Let's take a moment after we see the next save to discuss how to proceed
It is good to be slapped a bit from time to time. So keep it up ThERat. I have this unfortunate personality with an extreme "lock on target" and go. And you don't stop an elephant in the middle of a charge that easily. ;)

EDIT: I agree we are at a crossroads now as to what we wnat to do with the game. Several scenarios are open for us so I am looking forward to a productive discussion over the next few turns.

Whomp
Sep 15, 2007, 08:31 AM
Good plan guys and I agree on the muskets. I'd still like to deny the island since my feeling is Rik has strategically placed a number of resources on these islands.

Robi D
Sep 15, 2007, 07:22 PM
Good plan guys and I agree on the muskets. I'd still like to deny the island since my feeling is Rik has strategically placed a number of resources on these islands.

I agree, the islands will have something important on them like saltpeter or coal.

ThERat
Sep 15, 2007, 09:43 PM
I opened th save and I like what I have seen.

Council has to abandon 2 towns directly next to our 2 MW's that stole the workers :D
That's now a total of 5 towns gone for them and we control their resource Island.

They have muskets however, so attacking with MW's will be tough. We might want to try and land a few units in the north from where our other galleys come.

I would load those 4 heavily wounded and surrounded units + the slave and sail maybe south? We might want to land in the north while we have a small party of disturbance in the south?
I would also make sure we can occupy all resource Islands and block them

Wotan
Sep 16, 2007, 12:49 AM
Good to know, I have yet to open the save but this is as we have discussed earlier a point of "big decisions". So absolutely no need to rush the turn. I sure am irritated at the situation from last turn and the debacle leading up to it. Your idea about the turn was so much better than what actually was done. But politically it defused any risk of flak from Council.

We could bring the MWs in transit back home for upgrade? Leave the northern and southern forces to heal and drop in for quick beach parties, like waht we did in the NW.

The fact they have Muskets also put a damper on things. Good part is they are now out of cheap units to build as cannonfodder. ;) And they are down to their last few units according to what I "read between the lines" when talking to Niklas.

Whomp
Sep 16, 2007, 08:14 AM
Here's some pictures. I noticed we could run a deficit of 100g if we want to get guns in 2 instead of 3. I suppose it's not huge to see saltpeter that fast.

Pre and post GA...
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2944/prejj9.jpg

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7392/postlk2.jpg

Our satelite view...I think we should keep an eye on the Free galley because if it moves it means Council and Free are probably closing in on astro or mag.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/290/empirerg9.jpg

Council's cities. If we can keep raising havoc on their coasts while refitting our MW's I think we should do it. They'll have no capability to produce shipping if we can cause issues in their coastal cities. I would also be inclined to swap the slaves in the redlined boat for the MW's on land. If we cover that redlined boat with a reg galley I'd rather see the slaves lost than the MW's who are more valuable.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8207/councilii1.jpg

Wotan
Sep 16, 2007, 10:26 AM
Agree with everything you say Whomp. First off though I think we should ask for an extension this turn so we can discuss this another "round" before playing. the time zones do spread us out a bit. ;) Around the globe with every continent covered.

Good to know they fear war weariness so much they disband towns all over the place. Annying thing is there should be 2 Galleys in teh "corner" 2SW of The Pier. Must have forgotten to move them last turn. Darn!

We don't know how well they have been able to move units to address the issue of our two "NW" MWs, we might be interested in risking them by moving them N/NE or N/N (if N/N tile is not open) That way we threaten Greenhouse and a possible inland town just beyond the marshes.

Shall we "cruise" the S/W coastline with two stacks of 4 Galleys each. That will keep them on their toes, as a similar stack will appear out of the fog next turn from the north. That would suggest us having 24 land units still in the area. Maybe there is no real reason for us to ship any MWs home for upgrades? They might as well stay and keep Council busy. After all it is a question of half a dozen turns for them to make it back. OTOH we can probably count or there being Muskets in every coastal port any turn now and the question is if the MWs even if there are a stack of 8 are capable of taking a town?

So first of all do we keep units in the area? Galleys only? Or Galleys with MWs? In stacks of what numbers? And do we pull out the two in NW? The two MWs just off the Resource island near SABER could return for upgrade I guess? We have 15 MWs left now. We can probably build some 35-40 Knights during our GA which should be sufficient to cause some serious damage to Council. We outproduce them during our GA and they have lost more than us during the opening stages of this war. So getting ashore agin should not be a problem. In that perspective I would say the war has been successful so far, in another 20 turns I guess they too would have covered the whole shore line.

Whomp
Sep 16, 2007, 10:50 AM
One thing we could do is send one of the MW's N and always pick him up by switching boats. I can't tell from my picture where the blue borders start but there's a possibility those MW's could force their units that direction so heading along the SE coast with other units could cause mass confusion.

I would definitely keep units in the area. We have 4 movement from boats to their 3 movement for muskets. Since we are handbuiding knights (libs in the core) I don't think we need to bring back all the MW's. Let's force their hand by having them put muskets in all their ports.

One of the big benefits of us hitting our GA is they don't want us to get techs so Free could be naked for a GONG attack. We should press them on this.

Wotan
Sep 16, 2007, 11:36 AM
I have posted we will require some extra time this turn. I agree with your analysis Whomp but we might as well wait for a few more to check in and give their opinions.

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 16, 2007, 12:06 PM
Our troops can move 10 tiles in 2 turns: load (1), move(4+4), unload (1). Their muskets are limited to 6. Their runners can go 6 tiles but if we play our cards well enough they might call a bluff too many here and there and strand their troops out of range.

So long as we are across the corner, however, we can't take full advantage of movement. We can only do it on either the E or W coast and, as Whomp said, we want to threaten the E coast. I suggest we pull as many troops and boats from the W shore for now, let them heal in boats and have them run towards the E coast. Get to the other end, bring back half the boats.

This way they have to gamble on where we are. We'll have to face their runners either way, they aren't without wits. But it will condemn many of their defenders to useless spots and we gain a lot there. Meanwhile we keep making the North chaotic and their life turns to hell. Morale will fall on their side in front of an unknown threat looming over their core a known threat to their satellites and reinforcements coming for us on their W coast.

I don't know how long it will take us to re-assemble a fight squad we can land on their W coast - I'm counting 10 (move) + 5 (knight production) turns for about 10 knights - but we need to keep them guessing. And we need to abuse of the mobility we have in the North.

I'm all for pushing our luck inland. 2 MW are close to something, either NE-E or N-E-E. I'd press on N then E. Going for the coast isn't unreasonable but it definitely wouldn't cripple them as much.

Random observations: we have warriors fortified in jungles, they could die from disease. Unfortifying them will see them survive. Imelda can share a BG with Hefner to let it grow faster and neither would produce knights slower. 3 towns from the North will riot next turn, and they are set on warriors. Do we really want to build warriors?

Wotan
Sep 16, 2007, 12:52 PM
Agree throughout the discussion on movements along their coasts.

Will unfortify the Warriors, did not know that the fortification risk them dying.

Also get the MMing up to speed again.

Warriors are built in all fringe towns with low production to act as beach patrols. That is the cheapest way of getting our coastline safe. We were told in pretty unfriendly terms we were wrong not palying with landing denial units so we might as well comply to what teh majority believe to be superior tactics. ;) With a bunch of sites still to have towns popped down the required number of units to keep our island invasion free is 53 (I think I remember that correctly)

On moving the two MWs: N/E would not allow them to reach Greenhouse next turn. N/NE might do it if tile N/N is open terrain.

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 16, 2007, 01:01 PM
The N/E move would be to try and uncover a town on the NE axis just E of the MW. The culture border is unmistakeable: there's a town up there, 1, 2 or 3 tiles away. Getting that one would do more than getting an unconnected jungle town. It would also give us some kind of position in the middle of their place where they can't really know what we're up to.

ThERat
Sep 16, 2007, 03:25 PM
We can't reach Greenhouse in 2 since it has jungle around it. But we could drop a slave for maximum fog busting. I would also try and go for the core rather then the useless jungle town at the coast.

Important is to keep them on their toes in the northwest and southwest to have a nice landing from the resource Island northeast.

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 16, 2007, 03:42 PM
With the second stack, I wouldn't even bother razing the "M" town on the border with the lake. Straight to the core with massive ship bluff on their SE coast. Bluff we have more troops during and after we drop all our troops from that front. That should buy us the time we need to bring 10 knights down on the Nursery, and from there NE to the middle of the island.

Wotan
Sep 16, 2007, 05:21 PM
Yea, agree about how to use the two MWs in NW. But I do think we should wait with the next wave until we have more than 10 Knights to put ashore.

ThERat
Sep 16, 2007, 06:56 PM
So, what do we do with the 2 landed MW's? Do we poke further inland or do we load them onto ships? I would be inclined to try and get inland with them.

I would drop a slave onto the jungle to get rid of some fog to know recon the northwestern corner.

And before loading the wounded troops back onto boats, don't forget to pillage the tile they stand on ;)

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 16, 2007, 07:21 PM
We can't really leave the 2 MW stay there if they are alone. It would be all too convenient for them. We need to pull those two out with the lower stack.

From there, this is how I see it, very tentatively:

Then if we are going to wait a while for everything, we might as well hide every boat altogether for as long as we can and send them in 3 groups, 1 in the N-NW, 1 to the NE of their core and the last in the mountain ranges over The Pier.

On turn 1, we land the disruption/bluff green stack. We time it so that on turn 2, we land over the mountains. The mountain stack. This means we have a big bluff stack at the nursery on turn 4. We let them unmoved on turn 5 and we land the knight stack on turn 6 over the NE shore.

This means the only stack that doesn't have proper pike cover is the one we land to the S, which is over the mountain ranges anyways and can capture a town or two in the mean time.

Wotan
Sep 17, 2007, 12:11 AM
Any chance of getting to a concensus on the "MWs"? Whomp and ThERat advocating pressing on inland and Beorn arguing for a pull-out. I think I am beginning to lean towards Beorn's suggestion to not go inland. As far as I can tell both the tile N/E and the tile N/NE do seem to be reachable by AC/HM moving on roads from Nursery and they have several of them in there.

So 2 against 2 at the moment. Anyone want to join the discussion or change their stand? I did and I have actually begun to like the game again, the last 48 hours or so of discussions have been really nice.

ThERat
Sep 17, 2007, 04:12 AM
Maybe pull out the MW's, better preserve them. I like BeF's plan anyway

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 17, 2007, 04:33 AM
I didn't like the pulling out idea at first but then, with reinforcements at hand (we save at least 2 turns off transport if we pass through the north, probably 3 or 4 with well-placed galleys to receive knights), there was some sense to be made into that.

They have a lot of horses, I'd be wary of them massing upgrades to knights - not that they would outnumber us even then. At most, they could make it an even fight. They have terrain advantage but we'll split them out really bad.

And well, with that plan, the zig-zag on the SE coast can be added without a problem: station galleys in the middle of the coast then, just before D-day, move everything NE but bring a couple back SW in time for the drop. Let more galleys keep going north for a turn but full retreat just after. Voilą, all the plans discussed put together.

Again I'm just throwing ideas around, by all means crash in with other views.

Wotan
Sep 17, 2007, 06:34 AM
I think we have a pretty solid base to build on now. We seem to be in agreement about what to do so I might as well play the save now and send it. Following Beorn's outline.

Wotan
Sep 17, 2007, 08:00 AM
Followed the plan. Missed with one unit and that was a Galley with one of the wounded units from Council Resource island. I moved it homewards, then again maybe we should bring it home?

9 Knights in production, we should have 30 to send in less than 20 turns (probably 15).

Have sent two screen shots of the two connections between GONG and FREE we have charted to help them plan their campaign. Surprising enough FREE controls GONGs island!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/28942/wotsa.JPG

ThERat
Sep 19, 2007, 05:26 PM
as posted in other threads before, I will be going back to my hometown for around 2 weeks (to enjoy some nice german :beer: ). The team has currently only about 4-5 active members anyway, so I hope I can still check the progress sometimes and chip in my opinion.

Beorn-eL-Feared
Sep 19, 2007, 05:46 PM
Have a good one :D

Admiral Kutzov
Sep 19, 2007, 06:19 PM
have fun, Mr Rat. I've forgotten most of Civ3, but Ill still post inane comments from time to time. :crazyeye:

think we sacrifice the units for the intelligence. bust the fog. worth 2 MWs

gmaharriet
Sep 19, 2007, 07:43 PM
Have a great holiday, ThERat!!! I'm here actively reading the thread every day, trying to learn something, but I don't often post. I wish you a safe journey. :)

Wotan
Sep 23, 2007, 09:45 AM
I have checked the save and I guess it is just a question of continuing to worry Council. Will move back ships near their resource island and disembark temportrily to allow us to attack their Galley. Playing in a few hours.


EDIT: I waited until this morning to play before going to work. Just a lot of shuffling goind on. sending ships to worry Council. 2 Turns to Gunpowder. Churning out Knights now at a good pace. I have sent the surplus ships back towards our waters to load up with knights and then return towards Council.

Wotan
Sep 27, 2007, 11:39 AM
Turn played. Unexciting to say the least. FREE obviously have astronomy now, two galleys in sea tiles. Gunpowder next turn.

Whomp
Sep 27, 2007, 05:10 PM
Ohoh. That's not good.

ThERat
Sep 28, 2007, 01:42 AM
we better make sure to block all tiles of our resource Islands before they come to attack

Wotan
Oct 02, 2007, 08:35 AM
Guys, turn is in but we cannot play it until an admin has had a look at it. Not a single unit that was moved last turn has had their movement allowances reset. So those with MPs remaining have just those MPs to use, anyone that moved fully is "red dotted".

Then we also need to discuss how to deal with education. FREE has gifted it to us. :lol: They sure want us and GONG to be stuck at Education so they can swap everything with Council. I would suggest we do not accept this generous gift.

Also JB played the turn for >GONG and did not think about the agrement for them to hold on to Education for a while to allow FREE/Council to trade and then lend us the use of the GLib for a few turns to get all the techs. So we decline their trade too, right? We do not accept his offer of Education

EDIT: got a reply re. the "bug" from Ginger Ale. Apparently jb did not end the turn correctly so he need to submit a new turn for us to play. Just delete the current turn we have recieved if you have downloaded it.

Whomp
Oct 04, 2007, 06:01 PM
Saber, Saber, Saber....:shake: Out of curiousity what do we have on this island? I don't think they want anything to do with a war.

Well, as far as we are concerned allowing SABER into our midst was a huge mistake. They have landed a Warrior on one of our islands. Could you please deal with this and make them understand we are "connected at the hip" and thus this action is not acceptable.

Wotan, I Bcc'ed the Babe account my response to Saber. Here it is...

Hey gang,

I understand that you've put a warrior in the Babe's territory. Please don't start a war w/ them at this point or force them to divert resources. We like them as our tech partner and we're happy to work w/ you as a buyer of cheap techs. The techs you've purchased are not complete, I think Astro's missing... Sticking your finger in the Babe's collective eye (a lone warrior?) is just going to muck things up.

BWT, are you mulling over our peace proposal or are you not interested? Please let us know your thoughts.

Thanks,

jb

Wotan
Oct 06, 2007, 02:50 AM
I do not think the Saber landing is too important. I would really like it if theye werer to land a huge army there. Then we gift the closest location to GONG and voila! They will not have a target of ours to go after.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/28942/wotsb.JPG
Our homeland is soon settled according to teh initial plan. A few locations along the cost still to be filled. And every minor, non-connected town is busy building Warriors so the coastline will also be covered in the not too distant future.

We have Gunpowder and have started on Chemistry.

Wotan
Oct 10, 2007, 03:05 AM
Could it be that our rejection of the education gift has put some confusion into their plans?
Team FREE will need some extra time to complete this turn. Another 24 hours should be enough.

ThERat
Oct 14, 2007, 05:14 PM
Not that I actually know much about the current status of the game, but it is not nice to stall the game. anyone taking the turn (where is Wotan btw???)

Wotan
Oct 14, 2007, 05:50 PM
I'm here, I PMed jb about the turn. Seems they sent the wrong turn by mistake.

BCLG100
Oct 15, 2007, 03:34 PM
So turns seem to have slowed a lot then?

Wotan
Oct 15, 2007, 03:39 PM
I have played the turn but for some bizzare reason i cannot send any "big" mails from my computer. Had a friend try to solve it for me tonight but no solution yet. Sorry.

ThERat
Oct 16, 2007, 05:46 PM
Updates on the turns played have been a little sparse and honestly, I have no clue what is going on at the moment. Are we shifting units for more fights?

In this case, we have to solely rely on Wotan to play the turns as nobody really knows what is going on, do we? I have to admit I am a little lost what is happening and it doesn't help my motivation for the game much.

Wotan
Oct 17, 2007, 02:09 AM
I think we all suffer from low motivation. The game died after the SABER incident I guess. The current situation is we produce two things, Warriors in unconnected towns for beach guard duties and Knights/Galleys in other towns. A few Libraries in core locations added to this. Not a lot to write home about so I guess reporting and discussions have been a bit sparse. Will probably catch up again when we get closer to the end of the GA and have Knights in numbers again.

Wotan
Oct 22, 2007, 05:40 AM
To allow for everyone to get back up to speed on the current situation. We have 16 Knights now, building about 2 each turn on average and plan to go on teh offensive again at the end of our GA. 30 Galleys should make it possibble to keep a constant flow of reinforcemts coming.

Almost finished settling the coastline. 6 locations left to fill and then we need about 25-30 additional Warriors to make the coastline safe. Should have that sorted at the end of GA too. Might be that we need to use a few Knight temporarily just to make it in time?

Council tried to get a peace agreement this turn, I of course turned them down. If soemone else feel like playing the turns just let me know.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/28942/wotsc.JPG

Beorn-eL-Feared
Oct 22, 2007, 07:58 AM
I'd lean against the town NW of Resse: it needs every food tile it has to work mountains. rest looks good.

Did we start sending out knights once we had 10-12? They built Leo's, it's certain at this point that they are upping horses into knights.

Wotan
Oct 22, 2007, 09:01 AM
I'd lean against the town NW of Resse: it needs every food tile it has to work mountains. rest looks good.

I would probably agree with you on that location. I sort of put down dots on all vacant tiles without any raeal thought.

ThERat
Oct 22, 2007, 05:24 PM
Thanks Wotan for the detailed turn description. The question is whether we can actually use our knights or are all coastal tiles now occupied by units???

Wotan
Oct 23, 2007, 03:45 AM
I have staretd to send Knights towaards the intended northern landing. The limiting factor has so far been access to transport.

ThERat
Oct 26, 2007, 08:32 PM
Wotan, in order not to slow things down too much, shall others start to play turns as well???

Wotan
Oct 27, 2007, 01:00 AM
If you want to take it for a while ThERat, go for it! I can play the turn a little later today but feel free to take it. I arrived home pretty late yesterday evening so did not have time to play it then.

EDIT: Opened the save and played the turn now, no issues to deal with, just continue to produce knights and get them sent towards the northern landing.

Wotan
Oct 31, 2007, 02:50 AM
We have a pretty low interest in this game all around i guess. I am just playing the turns from commitment rather than enthusiasm. This last turn holds an interesting piece of news. Council has a Caravel so they have obviously swapped techs with FREE. I have PMd GONG about the possible GLib swap to take advantage of any techs and await an answer prior to playing. Maybe we should postpone not only the turn until we have sorted tis but also postpone any sending of Knights until we have all coast tiles covered by Warriors. We are still missing some 15-20 tiles. But with the Knights we can get full coverage. Should we do this to make the island SABER like?

Whomp
Oct 31, 2007, 03:41 PM
I think we're all in a different place right now but let's try to follow through.

I think leaving some knights around to handle any incursion is critical. They'll end up going straight for where they think we are first and roll from there. My guess is our NE or NW coast and will head south from there.

ThERat
Oct 31, 2007, 05:32 PM
It's quite sad how such a game can turn into this...enthusiasm was surely killed by lack of action...how they can find waiting for ages to lauch SS fun, is amazing....anyway I concur with covering our coastline.

Wotan
Nov 02, 2007, 03:41 AM
I'm still waiting for a reply from Killercane about the GLib issue. Have played the turn but if there is anything we need to sort with the GONG I'd better sit on it in case we need to make any changes.

Wotan
Nov 08, 2007, 02:09 AM
Still waiting for feedback from GONG.
This was what I excahnged with Killercane and jb1964:
Originally Posted by Wotan
Quote:
Originally Posted by killercane
Just a quick note. Hope things are well in Babeland. What are you guys researching? We seem to be a bit disorganized.

We will have chemistry next turn. The main event this turn is that Council has a Caravel! Seems they have swapped techs with FREE after all. So shoudl we enact the GLib swap to gain whatever they have now? We will postpone until we have sorted this I guess.

Not sure how to proceed right now? We have Chemistry but do we send it prior to having some contact from them?

Whomp
Nov 08, 2007, 04:42 PM
I think we want to do the swap. I've been pm'ing 'Cane on some other b'ness so let me know what we should suggest. It seems like it's the best option.

ThERat
Nov 08, 2007, 10:34 PM
Sorry to give so little input but the game has lost all factors that could make it interesting for me...blocking of shores isn't exactly exciting

Wotan
Nov 08, 2007, 11:34 PM
If we have not recieved any reply from GONG in 12 hrs, I suggest we enact the gift everything plan previously discussed and drop this game.

Wotan
Nov 09, 2007, 09:09 AM
OK, I have made it clear to the other teams it might be for the best we end this game at elast for BABE. What is the opinion of the team?

I feel bound by the promise to GONG, should we drop we should gift them our assets so just dropping or abandoning everything feels wrong. So I guess my response would be to act according to that agreement. On that issue, we have discovered Chemistry this turn and shoudl pass that to them anyway. Then again it is now 9 days since I sent PMs to jb and Killer about the GLib issue with no reply so not sure what happens at tehir end either.

Whomp
Nov 09, 2007, 04:39 PM
Honestly, I've never quit anything in my life and that makes this harder to say but the game is pure misery. I think we should resign because it's too much for one person to handle alone.

gmaharriet
Nov 09, 2007, 05:09 PM
Whomp, do you know if Gong is still active? I'd just as soon gift everything to them and join them as a refugee, provided that they're having as much fun on their island as the old KISS team did last game. We have a lot of old friends on Gong. If their team has died like this one has, I'd say gift them and then be done with the whole thing.

Even the other 3 teams are wishing we'd just go away, but I don't want to reward any of the rest them for making the game "unfun" by giving them any part of our island and infrastructure.

Just my $.02 .

Wotan
Nov 09, 2007, 07:44 PM
not sure they are still active. I sent a PM to jb and killer over a week ago and have yet to recieve a reply abot the game.

Wotan
Nov 10, 2007, 02:32 AM
I have played the turn. We have an almost fully covered shoreline now. Only south coast still open.

Chemistry in, I passed it on to GONG. Not sure what is going on at their end? Have tried to get some comms with jb and killer for a week now without any response.

Metallurgy next, will be ready in 6 turns. GA still 10 turns to run.

Have begun to post perimeter galleys capable of moving out two tiels and then back again each turn to catch any FREE/Council ships in deep waters shoudl they now have Navigation.

Sunk a Council Galley for the loss of a Galley.

Whomp
Nov 10, 2007, 08:13 AM
I sent a pm to Killercane too.

Whomp
Nov 10, 2007, 11:23 AM
Here's a pm from Cane.
I would say Glib trick if allowed but probably not the cities; I havent been playing the turns and have been looking at it in passing. Gifting cities would be too unbalancing.

gmaharriet
Nov 10, 2007, 09:53 PM
It might be unbalancing, but IMHO our leaving the game would leave Gong without a research partner unless they team up with Saber and gift them up enough to be a useful partner. That seems unbalancing as well and certainly would reward Saber for using their blocking tactic in the first place.

If and when it got to the point of mano-a-mano, Saber's Sipahis would easily run over Gong's Gallics. Talk about unbalancing!!!

Is anybody paying serious attention in Gong land???

ThERat
Nov 11, 2007, 08:05 PM
I think Gong is almost spaced out as well and they do not care really. Who would with such a map...the intentions were great, the players spoilt it.

BCLG100
Dec 19, 2007, 04:46 AM
Thanks for continually playing this wotan :goodjob: :)